I like the "43" signature. Did you know the Bush had taken up oil painting? I'd missed the snarky notes about it last summer, like this from ArtFagCity:

This is all the information we have: at a hospital fundraiser in Memphis Monday night, former President George W. Bush mentioned his new hobby, oil painting. He told the crowd he’s “kinda stuck” to painting dogs. Tragically, there are no pictures. [The Daily Beast] Relatedly, we’ll totally pay you if you find pictures of George W. Bush’s dog paintings.

I guess Bush knew his dog was dying — it was 12 years old and had lymphoma — and he intended to show his first artwork when the time came to announce the dog's death.

And then there was this, last October: "George W. Bush Painting Dogs All Day, Becoming ‘Agoraphobic,’ Is Skeptical Of Romney’s Chances, New Profile Of Bush Fam Reveals."

The mag describes a Bush that is hiding away from the public eye, with one unnamed person observing: “He’s become increasingly agoraphobic… he doesn’t like people, he never did, he doesn’t now.”

The profile also says: “The most unpopular president in recent political history, W. left a record of big-government spending and intractable wars that remains difficult even for allies to defend … W. remains convinced history will vindicate him...."

He doesn’t like people, he never did, he doesn’t now.... So says an unnamed person.

A hug for President Bush today. And I think the painting is very good. Of course, there will always be Bush haters. Can't stop the Bush haters from hating their Chimpy McHitler.

And Barney was a cool dog. I remember a show where the host went to Crawford and hung out with Bush, they went fishing in the pond (one of the ponds?) on the place. Barney would stand in the front of the boat, very much at attention and when a fish would be brought into the boat he'd bark his damn head off and go nuts. Apparently he hated him some fish. Bush said he had, in the past, gone right into the water trying to get them before they made the boat.

Dogs are crazy. We like dogs. Don't trust people that don't like dogs.

I don't believe the stuff about him not liking people or being agoraphobic. Just my impression. I'm guessing he would be fine to hang out with, even better back when he was drinking, and a good friend to those who know him.

Tank: while not a great POTUS, he was a far better one than we were (or have) been allowed to know.

One example: unemployment at statistically zero, played by the howling hordes in the media as the second coming of the Great Depression. Contrast that with whatever the number is now (they say about 8% but the real number is easily double that).

While true, irrelevant. Bush did great damage to this country in eight years. Too early to tell who did/will do more damage. Probably Zero, but not a sure thing.

Bush was a big government guy, and big spender, absolutely. And he did his damaage, both to the country and to the 'conservative' brand. (he was *not* conservative). But there seems to be a malignant malice to Obama's approach. I think his damage will be more profound, and likely irreversible.

Bush was a subpar president. So is Obama.By 2017, we will have endured 16 straight years of subpar, inadequate presidents. Bush, however, is a good man who had the class, as a former president, to step out of the spotlight and go away. Obama, like Clinton and Carter, will never go away.

You would think with all the vitriol aimed at the current president on this very blog, you wouldn't want to compare it to the relatively mild dislike of Bush, who after all did get us into an unnecessary (and arguably illegal war) and violated both the Geneva Convention and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Wonderful painting. There was a show on BookTv this morning in which Paul Dickson discussed presidential verbal inventiveness. W. was savaged for misunderestimate but it's now accepted as an underestimation that is mistaken as opposed to one like Obama's on the ultimate cost of Obamacare which is just a lie. Obama's only contribution thus far in terms of neologisms is Snowmageddon.

I was speaking primarily of your commentators. You, of course are a little more circumspect. You can always fall back on the argument "I didn't call him a socialist Kenyan Muslim Nazi Communist, I just linked to Drudge or Rush and let the chips fall where they may." So while I could show you a post where you compared Obama to Hitler and Stalin, you will slyly reply: "I didn't say that I just pointed out that Drudge did"

Darrell said...Bush was a far better man than we were ever allowed to know. We'd be far better off if we never knew about Obama=================A better man, yes.But some good and even great men should not be President.Look at Hebert Hoover. A titan in his field of mining, then the field of general logistics. The man who saved 2-3 million Europeans from starving at the end of WWI.

When was the last time we heard about Choom meeting with the families of dead soldiers?

When is Choom going to give up golf because it isn't seemly for him to be having fun while others are suffering?

Dubya's domestic ideas weren't too good, but he was on the money in foreign policy and he was, and is, a good man.

madAsHell said...

I thought Hitler was an art student.

Nope, never made the cut.

Tank said...

Bush did great damage to this country in eight years. Too early to tell who did/will do more damage. Probably Zero, but not a sure thing.

You have not been paying attention the last 4 years.

Shouting Thomas said...

Bush's role in the subprime mortgage scam was a disaster. No doubt about that. Obama was in on that, too. Who wasn't?

Shout, you don't know what you're talking about.

For 8 years, Dubya did everything he could to get Congress to close it down.

Choom OTOH was the 3rd highest receiver of bank money after Dodd and the Hildabeast. Barry was the Friend of Angelo's little handmaiden on the Senate Banking Committee and helped kill any attempts to stop subprime mortgages in committee.

CEO-MMP said...

Let's not forget that ol' turdblossom thought he could corrupt the democrat party and render it neuter by dragging them along with a lot of silly crap.

Turdblossom, while a really smart guy, and apparently a pretty good guy, was incredibly naive about certain things. Like his boss.

Gee, sounds like a certain Disrespectful Jerk now blessedly gone from these precincts.

Finally, the not liking people and agoraphobia comments are just nonsense. GWB is a good man who never seems to have confused the office he held with he himself. He has a life other than politics and this seems to bother the left to no end.

I am neither surprised that he can paint rather well nor surprised by the snark of those who will probably be his lifelong critics. They will have to keep climbing taller and taller ladders over time to be able to look down their noses at him.

Freder Frederson said...You would think with all the vitriol aimed at the current president on this very blog,..

To state the obvious: Freder defines "this blog" to include each and every commenter. But even then he would lose the argument. For while Obama scorn is all the rage among commenters at the moment, four years ago it was all about deriding Bush.

Althouse appears to lord above the commenter fray, and only swoops in to smack the knuckles of the more unruly. What Meade actually does behind the scenes is a mystery.

I thought Bush was a great guy who was way out of his league as president, that his administration really mucked things up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Note, I supported his moves at the time.

I speculate that his reclusiveness has a little to do with regrets that he has and maybe some bitterness. The vitriol at that level is a bit much for any person to stand. I think he was genuinely embittered and hurt by Kanye West and I think he's done his best to endure all the slings and arrows with dignity, but I don't think he's a happy man.

Just my idol speculations. Feel free to call me a hypocrite and a liar.

I saw some of Churchill's paintings. I'm no judge of such things but they looked accomplished. Eisenhower's paintings looked clumsy and ameteurish. Someone should sponsor an art show featuring famous dilletantes.....I bet if the leftists saw what a talented artist Bush is they would change their opinion radically.

Bush has the advantage of being a decent person. People like him. He's going to be just fine whether history calls his presidency good or not. He has the advantage of loving his country. No matter what else Obama is he does not like his country and is doing everything possible to change it. This is not decent or likeable. He can't hide his disdain for the country he leads. Plus, Bush is a decent painter and loves his dog. I like that about him.

Tank, Dubya has already been outstripped in the debt, foreign policy, regulation, and economic arenas by Zero.

Are we waiting for hit by a meteor?

And, whether Dubya was or was not uncomfortable around people, he was, and is, a mensch. As the record clearly shows, he never failed to show he understood the gravity of his office in the effect it had on people's lives.

When has King Putt, Awesome though he may be, ever done anything close?

PS FWIW, Dolf's big problem was drawing people. he could draw things just dandy, but he never got the hang of the folks.

Freder answer this question (we'll leave the Geneva Convention aside for the moment).

Where does it say in the US Constitution that a United States President can decide to kill a US citizen overseas by using a drone--without according any due process or other constitutional protections to said citizen before blowing his backside into smithereens?

I'm not saying that Alwaki didn't deserve killing (he did). But if Dubya had done such a thing, you'd be leading the charge screaming about Dubya shredding the Constitution etc.

Bush agoraphobic? Hardly.He is very active with his library project at SMU. My daughter is a student there, and she has met him a couple of times around campus in the last year. He is classy enough not to weigh in on everything and criticize the current president. I guess with ex-presidents like Clinton and Carter as their guides, the Democrats don't understand the value of reticence.

Where does it say in the US Constitution that a United States President can decide to kill a US citizen overseas by using a drone--without according any due process or other constitutional protections to said citizen before blowing his backside into smithereens?

What gives you the notion that I agree with the drone assasination program? It is problematic at best and may indeed be illegal, or even possibly a war crime.

Unlike you Bush apologists, I am willing to criticize this president when I think he is wrong. Althouse never criticized Bush over his lies or war crimes.

"Your 'illegal war' meme is so much leftist bullshit to begin with. Congress authorized the Pres to use force beyond the 90 days of the War Powers Act, so its completely legal."

Congress can "authorize" all the wars they like, but if they are in violation of the UN Charter, they are illegal. (We are signatories to the UN Charter, which forbids going to war against another nation except in self-defense (or defense of an ally), or unless approved by the UN Security Council.) By your standard it would be entirely legal for China to invade or launch missle attacks against the USA if the National People's Congress voted their approval.

How is Congress' vote on the AUMF different in general outcome than the Enabling Act in Germany in 1933? The latter ceded authority to Hitler to make laws without Parliamentary debate, and the former cedes authority to the President to make war anywhere and against anyone he chooses in the furtherance of our so-called and fraudulent "war on terror."

In fact, it was unconstitutional for Congress to cede war-making powers to the President; the Constitution makes Congress solely responsible and gives it sole authority to declare war, expressly to prohibit the President from waging wars at whim, as a monarch could.

Bush's role in the subprime mortgage scam was a disaster. No doubt about that. Obama was in on that, too. Who wasn't?"

I have videos of Bush administration officials testifying before the 2007 Democrat Congress about the hazards of the policy of subsidizing those high risk mortgages. It was too late, of course.

I think history will show that Alan Greenspan was the real villain and he was trying to keep the ball rolling after the 1999 internet bubble burst with another bubble, the housing bubble. The Republican Congress could have stopped it but the politics of race made it hard. Congressmen are no smarter than the average nitwit, as we see with Hagel.

Bush could have done more but he got preoccupied with Iraq and lost the House majority in 2006. If anyone is to blame, it's Gingrich who had the opportunity to change course in 1994 but got more interested in his book and his ego.

If you are referring to the small remnants of corroded and militarily unusable pre-Gulf War chemical weapons that were found--overlooked and forgotten crumbs left after the destruction by Iraq in the 80s of their WMD--I guess one could say that and it would not be a lie.

However, if one were to assert Iraq had the massive stores of up-to-date, militarily usable WMD that were enumerated by Bush...that would be--and was--a lie.

Moreover, even if they believed or had convinced themselves Iraq had WMD, they had no proof, not even any evidence, even as they asserted publicly that their claims were not conjecture but were backed by undisputable proof. They lied about their degree of certainty and about their having undisputable proof. All they had was what they declared their claims were not: conjecture.

They also lied when they claimed "bullet proof" evidence that Hussain had ties to Al-Qaeda, which he did not.

The UN authorized the Iraq war and the removal of Saddam Hussein. It was also authorized by the terms of the cease fire treaty in 1991 that allowed Saddam to remain in power. Saddam violated those terms.

We enforced the treaty is all we did. For 18 different violations, to include genocide.

Blind assertion by leftwing double standard doesn't make the Iraq war a crime.

Colin Powell pressed a reluctant Bush to take the matter of mounting war against Iraq to the UN Security Council. When it became apparent they would not get the votes for approval, they withdrew the proposal.

"The U.S. initially sought a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.[7] Upon facing vigorous opposition from several nations (primarily France and Germany), however, the U.S. dropped the bid for UN approval and began to prepare for war; Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials argued that for these actions Bush, with his Administration, could be prosecuted for war crimes.[8] Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as leaders of several nations made similar statements, implying that the attack constitutes a war crime.[9]"

He also was shipping arms to Palestine and paying off suicide bombers families.

He hid weapons forbidden by the treaty. He had subverted the treaty by using the "oil for food" program to purchase weapons making materials from Germany, France and Russia. He bribed the French and German governments to look the other way with cheap oil. He also was purchasing ammunition and military gear from Russia and Germany. We captured lots of treaty violating contraband with date stamps that proved the violations.

When they get around to accountability for the European Nations that were violating the treaty for oil and money, get back to me and we'll talk about the US.

Cookie conveniently forgets that the Security Council opposed the invasion because the truth about France and Russia violating the treaty would come out. So, they were merely trying to keep their criminality hidden. Their opposition to the invasion is rather selfserving and wrong.

The entire "war crime" narrative to oppose the invasion rest on the foundation that the UNs Security Councils opposition was valid, instead of an attempt at hiding their criminal actions from being revealed.

Of course Cook is going to defend the UNs criminality, otherwise the anti-war house of cards falls apart.

The painting of Barney is pretty bad. It looks like it was made with a Sharpee. He needs some blues and purples to make the black and warm highlights to give it more of an illusion of depth. However, it takes balls to put yourself out there by painting pictures, so bully for him. Some of Hilters watercolor cityscapes are pretty good, much better than the German Shepard. Art is much more competitive than most fields, so being a "failed" artist is only a term of derision to facebook punters.

McChimpy and Ozero run similar policies, however, Bush really screwed up the two wars he started against his Dad's advise. Forget about the WMD issue. Nation building, two fronts, failure to secure insurgents following the kinetic phase in Iraq, favoring Iraq over A-Stan, political correctness, weak drone program, etc.

To those of you who decry the messy Arab Spring, try to remember this was the resulting reverse domino effect Bush promoted. Part of the overall NeoCon nation building theory predicted other ME dictatorships would fall to native democratic revolution as a benefit of creating democracies in Iraq and A-Stan.

He is remembered fondly by many people he came in contact with and the memoirs of the secret service agents and maids and ushers who dealt with him will reflect that. These books generally come out many years later but are a very good indication of how politicans treat regular people.

"George W. Bush is making the first major foray of his post presidency into global health, with a partnership to combat cervical and breast cancer in the developing world...his George W. Bush Institute is forming a public-private partnership to use [the very successful Bush Administration] AIDS-relief plan's huge infrastructure of doctors, nurses, and clinics to expand screening and treatment of women for cervical cancer as well as breast-cancer education."

Pretty good painting for a beginner. Unlike so much sentimental pet portrait crap I've seen, this painter doesn't patronize his subject.

The edges around the dog's neck are a bit stiff. The liveliest parts are the face and the eye. Painting dog isn't hard, painting a BLACK dog is. Like white-on-white, black-on-black is always a test of finesse. Amateurs tend to overdo the lights in the black. 43 passed the test.